- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I figured we should have a post where we can talk about GC generally (pun, intended). Bro. Packer’s talk made me sick to my stomach. I guess we are going back to the 80’s. Very very dissappointing this morning. “…We will not change, we can not change…” – Elder Packer Utchdorf will not be able to hold the castle by himself.
I try to look at the talks that irritate me as a good form of diversity. Some talk are boring. Some talks upset me. And some talk are truly inspiring. But this is my personal reaction to them.
Others sitting next to me are being inspired by ideas of the Church never changing, being absolutely true in all regards, and leaders being an unfailing source of guidance to depend on in all regards. While those ideas don’t really resonate with me, they bring a lot of comfort to other people who are experience their religion in a much different (but more common it seems) perspective.
Easier said than done, but I make a conscious effort to try and see it in a broader perspective like that.
I had a similar reaction to Bro. Packers talk and Bro. Oaks talk was discouraging as well. President Monson left me feeling hopeful but I don’t know what to do with the information from the other two talks. How do I live with integrity when leaders of our church say things that are so contrary to what I have worked out for myself? Well according to Bro. Oaks if what I have worked out for myself is contrary to what the priesthood says then I am wrong. Always one step forward and two steps back in this church. In the spirit of the ongoing MBTI discussion, and assuming that most of us are rationals or idealists, how can we reasonably expect more than a small percentage of general conference talks to speak to our needs? Musn’t be selfish. 
canadiangirl wrote:I had a similar reaction to Bro. Packers talk and Bro. Oaks talk was discouraging as well. President Monson left me feeling hopeful but I don’t know what to do with the information from the other two talks. How do I live with integrity when leaders of our church say things that are so contrary to what I have worked out for myself? Well according to Bro. Oaks if what I have worked out for myself is contrary to what the priesthood says then I am wrong. Always one step forward and two steps back in this church.
-sigh-
Elder Oaks — “His church is the way, and the priesthood is the power that we are privileged to participate in those cooperative practices necessary to do the Lords work…the priesthood line, like the personal line, cannot function unless we are worthy and obedient… ” “Organized religion” necessary for salvation,,”some members, or former members of our church fail to recognize the importance of the priesthood line. They underestimate the importance of the church and it’s leaders, relying enitely on the personal line, they go thier own way purporting to define doctrine contrary to the teachings of prophet leaders…those who reject the need for organized religion, reject the work of the master…”
-sigh-
Oh brother. I think overall, we went from one of the best, most progressive conferences and messages last Spring – to right back to the status quo where I remember the church being 30 years. “One step forward, two steps back”
doug wrote:In the spirit of the ongoing MBTI discussion, and assuming that most of us are rationals or idealists, how can we reasonably expect more than a small percentage of general conference talks to speak to our needs? Musn’t be selfish.
Okay. Touche’
To be fair to Elder Oaks, he did say explicitly that Priesthood revelation cannot be more important than personal revelation – that personal revelation is the most important of the two. I took his talk as an attempt to mediate against the two extremes – “I’m going to do whatever I feel no matter what the Church says,” and, “I’m going to do whatever I’m told to do by Church leaders without seeking personal revelation.”
I see General Conference as a mixed bag – talks that have to resonate with everyone at some point. If I get one per session that rocks my world, I’m very happy – and that has happened in three of them so far. I hope it happens again in the last one.
Old-Timer wrote:To be fair to Elder Oaks, he did say explicitly that Priesthood revelation cannot be more important than personal revelation – that personal revelation is the most important of the two.
Really? I didn’t catch that. I heard him say that the direct line is more important when presiding over the home — but both lines are equally important…
He was pretty blunt about those who say that their personal line doesn’t match up with the priesthood line — “it comes from Satan.” I started a new thread on this talk if any would like to response.
http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1899http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1899” class=”bbcode_url”> I like your explanation for the talk Ray. I don’t agree necessarily, but I appreciate folks who can find some good in it.
Old-Timer wrote:To be fair to Elder Oaks, he did say explicitly that Priesthood revelation cannot be more important than personal revelation – that personal revelation is the most important of the two.
If this was the point he was trying to make than it did not come across very clear to me. I have to agree with Cwald… his message seemed to be the opposite… that we could not trust personal revelation, especially if it was not in perfect accordance with Priesthood revelation. In which case it came not from God, but Satan.
Maybe he was saying personal revelation was more important… but only if it did not contradict the priesthood.
I could be wrong. I will be sure to re-listen to this talk.
I loved Pres. Monson’s talk on Gratitude. Such a wonderful topic! It was really a beautiful talk. Between him and Uchdorf I have managed to find someupliftment this conference. 
Just finished watching Mervyn B Arnolds talk on repentance. He was very emotional throughout the entire talk. I appreciated that, it made me want to listen.
This was so disappointing to me this weekend, I did the “unthinkable!” I finally registered an account over at NOM. It will be very difficult for me to continue the whole “walking on eggshells” after these talks and my recent experiences at church. I need a place where I can really be completely honest – maybe NOM will fill that need? Fortunately I was able to change my work travel plans to put me out of state every weekend this month so I don’t have to explain to the fam and members why I’m not at church, otherwise —- wow, I can’t imagine the angst I would have trying to attend church right now.
“one step forward,(Monson & Urtchdorf) two steps backwards” (everyone else)
cwald wrote:those who reject the need for organized religion, reject the work of the master
😮 Yikes! He said that? Sigh. The Master? Is he talking about that same guy who traipsed all over Galillee giving healings and wisdom teachings for 3 years without an org chart, a corporation, or even a building?Tom Haws wrote:cwald wrote:those who reject the need for organized religion, reject the work of the master
😮 Yikes! He said that? Sigh. The Master? Is he talking about that same guy who traipsed all over Galillee giving healings and wisdom teachings for 3 years without an org chart, a corporation, or even a building?The current organization is much like that fancy multimillion dollar space pen. Christ would have preferred a pencil.
cwald wrote:This was so disappointing to me this weekend, I did the “unthinkable!” I finally registered an account over at NOM.
I wouldn’t call that an unthinkable act. I hope it isn’t, because I’ve been registered over there for a couple years, hehe. I skim those boards when I have extra time, and post occasionally.
In fact, I specifically posted a new thread over there about conference that I did not post here (Pres. Monson’s PH session talk). I didn’t think it was appropriate for this community, but fit better at NOM.
There’s no law here against forum polygamy
😆 You can love more than one online community
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.